Mail Archives: djgpp/1996/09/09/10:46:18
I will try to answer the questions, but experience shows that different
people use debuggers in vastly different ways, so I advise you to try the
available debuggers yourself before you decide what's good enough for you,
and not rely on opinion of others alone.
> 1) Are there any alternatives to these two mentioned debuggers? I will
> prefer a source-level, full-screen debugger similar to Turbo Debugger
> (to make an example).
The next release of RHIDE, the IDE for DJGPP, will include an integrated
debugger, which is a just a GDB in disguise. So you should be able to
enjoy both the power of GDB and the convenience of a full-screen
environment.
> 2) Which are the real limitation of FSDB? I do a lot of code in C++ and
The only *real* limitation (IMHO) is that you cannot examine complex data
structures easily (you need to use the [name+offset] notation). The user
interface is *very* similar to TD. Since the C source code is shown
together with the assembly, I don't see that as a real limitation.
> 3) At first I cosidered buying WATCOM to develop Extended-DOS games. Is
> there any reason I would buy WATCOM instead of using DJGPP (I intend to
> write games as a professional developer, so I need all the tools to
> write and debug code as faster as possible)?
Does the fact that id software went from Watcom to DJGPP when they began
developing Quake answer your question?
- Raw text -